SC asks Noy for P4-B new building

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has asked President Aquino for P4 billion for a new building amid the controversy on Malacañang’s use of billions in government savings under its disbursement acceleration program (DAP).

Tomorrow, the SC is set to tackle petitions questioning the constitutionality of DAP.

“They have forwarded their request to the President for at least P4 billion for a new building because they are being asked to move out of their present location,” a senior member of the House of Representatives’ appropriations committee told The STAR yesterday.

The source said the lot and building housing the highest court belong to the University of the Philippines-Manila, which has advised the SC that it needs its property.

UP-Manila also owns and runs the Philippine General Hospital, which serves as its school of medicine.

The source said the highest court’s funding request came while Congress and the Palace are scrounging for money for victims of Super Typhoon Yolanda, the Cebu-Bohol earthquake and previous devastating storms like Pablo, Santi and Sendong, and the Zamboanga crisis.

“We are mobilizing all savings, unused appropriations and other funds available for the victims and the reconstruction of their communities,” the committee member said.

“If there are available funds for the SC request, they will come from DAP, which is a savings pool. Will the Supreme Court accept DAP funds?” the source asked.

The lawmaker said the SC could source part of the funds needed for its new building from its own savings.

There is apparently increasing friction between the SC and House members as a result of the recent decision of the tribunal striking down the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or congressional pork barrel as unconstitutional.

Over the weekend, Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, a member of the ruling Liberal Party, verbalized the collective sentiments of his colleagues against the decision, calling it a flip-flop.

“This is quite perplexing because about a year earlier, on April 24, 2012, the same Supreme Court declared the PDAF as constitutional,” Umali said.

He said last year’s decision was consistent with two other previous SC rulings on the same issue.

Umali, who was a member of the House prosecution panel in the Senate impeachment trial of former chief justice Renato Corona, said the SC even explained how PDAF worked in its 2012 ruling.

He quoted the decision: “The DBM (Department of Budget and Management) lays down the guidelines for the disbursement of the fund. The members of Congress are requested by the President to recommend projects and programs, which may be funded from the PDAF. The list... is endorsed by the Speaker to the DBM, which reviews and determines whether such projects submitted are consistent with the guidelines and priorities set by the Executive.”

The SC ruled that the petition filed by the Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty against PDAF “is seriously wanting in establishing that individual members of Congress receive and thereafter spend funds out of PDAF.”

“Although the possibility of this unscrupulous practice cannot be entirely discounted, surmises and conjectures are not sufficient bases for the Court to strike down the practice for being offensive to the Constitution. Moreover, the authority granted the members of Congress to propose and select projects was already upheld in Philconsa (a previous case),” the SC ruling stated.

“Why the flip-flop? Whatever happened to the doctrine of adherence to precedents, when just a year ago the same court ruled the PDAF is constitutional?” Umali asked.

He accused the tribunal of showing “despotic behavior” and usurping presidential power in its newest ruling when it ordered prosecutorial agencies to investigate and file cases against all those involved in PDAF misuse.

He cited “conflicting” decisions in two similar election cases involving his colleagues, which have reached the Supreme Court: those of Regina Reyes of Marinduque and Angelina Tan of Quezon.